Is there a term for an inflectional paradigm that is a composite of two previously independent paradigms? Like in Latin where the accusative plural from one declension is borrowed into another. Basically the opposite of syncretism .... The idea is to preserve differences that would normally be eroded by sound changes.

Suppletive, maybe? I'm not entirely sure I understand the situation you're describing, but that's what I'd call "an inflectional paradigm that is a composite of two previously independent paradigms".

Thank you, i had completely forgotten about adverbs! None of my conlangs currently use them. I'll probably divide adverbs into multiple new classes based off of usage, because plain adverbs are a bit too much of a catch-all category for me.

I have been struggling to make Ngarnungwunanurla's verbs sufficiently complex enough within the realm of naturalism, this well help a lot.

Yes, that sounds sensible. You could also invent a new preposition (or something similar) à la Spanish 'a' (again). But it would also work (and be interesting!) without it.

Relating back to this, I noticed that at least when addressing the accusative plural, French prefers the contraction "des" which means "some (of the)." Although it does seem that definiteness is still encoded in this word, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to mark it with only the preposition?

My Blog
Current Projects:Mannish — A North Germanic language spoken on the Calf of ManPelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake BalatonJezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area

So, i read a post from 3 years suggesting it's impossible to out-weird natlangs, so i'm going to take this as a challenge. I already know this languages alignment will be direct-inverse split person-animacy hieracy based off volition and empathy. What are other really weird possible features? Preferably non-attested.

Yes, that sounds sensible. You could also invent a new preposition (or something similar) à la Spanish 'a' (again). But it would also work (and be interesting!) without it.

Relating back to this, I noticed that at least when addressing the accusative plural, French prefers the contraction "des" which means "some (of the)." Although it does seem that definiteness is still encoded in this word, it probably wouldn't be too difficult to mark it with only the preposition?

I thought French 'des' was just a plain indefinite plural. You learn something new every day.

What are other really weird possible features? Preferably non-attested.

Not sure if it's weird enough since it's attested, but I always find the pegative case interesting. According to Wikipedia it only exists in one language, Tlapanec, which is spoken in Mexico and is pretty weird in general.

Also, you could easiky out-weird natlangs with your phonology. Here's an example phonology that could almost certainly never come about naturally even though all the sounds are technically possible:

Justifications for why it's weird and extremely implausible but not entirely impossible:
1. The only nasal consonants being voiceless is unattested AFAIK.
2. Denasalised nasals are unstable phonemes; coarticulated denasalised nasals are unattested AFAIK.
3. Phonemic /ɢ/ is rare.
4. It's a linguistic universal that no language has voiced stops without having voiceless stops...
5. ...so in order to not break the universe, there are coarticulated voiceless stops. However...
6. ...prenasalised aspirated plosives are rare; coarticulated ones may exist, but I don't know if they do.
7. Breathy-voiced implosives are unattested AFAIK, but easy to produce and sound hilarious.
8. Coarticulated stops where one POA is retroflex are unattested AFAIK.
9. Phonemic /q͡χʼ/ is not attested according to Wikipedia, but IIRC I read somewhere that Archi has it. Anyway, it's certified rare.
10. Whistled sibilants are rare as fuck, and whistled sibilant affricates are unattested apparently exist, but only in Shona...
11. ...and implosive affricates are insanely rare, so having implosive whistled sibilant affricates is insane.
12. Coarticulated fricatives and sibilants are rare. Coarticulated ejective fricatives and sibilants? Out of this world.
13. Contrasting a palatal fricative with a palatal approximant is rare.
14. Although nasalised approximants and fricatives aren't that rare, they're still pretty rare.
15. Phonemes differentiated only by bilabial and labiodental articulation are rare enough, but coarticulated with velar/uvular? wew
16. Coarticulated trills are rare. Bilabial trills are rare. Coarticulated bilabial-uvular trills? Unattested as fuck.
17. Only one language has phonemic /k͡ʟ̝̊ʼ/, and that's Archi. If Archi has it, you know it's good.

18. Only one language has rhotic nasal vowels AFAIK (Kalasha)...
19. ...and phonemic voiceless rhotic vowels are unattested AFAIK. So, voiceless nasal rhotic vowels are crazy...
20. ...especially if their qualities are more distinct than the non-nasal and non-rhotic vowels.

I have a question, in Lỏhondla there are weird focus markers to disambiguate some things, ta and li. Ta is used on the donor(D) to indicate they are the one using/with an instrument/object(R), so The man-ta sees the woman with binoculars(The man is using the binoculars). Li is used on the theme(T) to indicate they are the one using/with an instrument/object(R), The man sees the woman-ta with binoculars(The woman is using the binoculars).

Does it make sense to turn Ta into a more broad focus marker, and Li into a secondary focus marker? It doesn't seem like a stretch to me, but this is the first time i've used focus markers in a conlang.

I have two questions:
1) The agent noun in my conlang has CuCC- as the form in the governed state, how do I justify it having the suppleted form CaCkaC as the construct state? Additional information is that CuCC- is derived from root plus u-suffix while CaCkaC is derived from root plus Vka-infix.

2) I'm wondering how I can justify (i.e where they come from and how they might have been used) the 1st person singular and plural pronouns having suppleted forms (different root) in the accusative and genitive cases, such that:
1st Singular :
*ǧī́ > žaẏ
*ǧī́-ib > šad-ib (vs žay-ib)
*ǧī́-ak > šad-ik (vs žay-ak)

I have two questions:
1) The agent noun in my conlang has CuCC- as the form in the governed state, how do I justify it having the suppleted form CaCkaC as the construct state? Additional information is that CuCC- is derived from root plus u-suffix while CaCkaC is derived from root plus Vka-infix.

2) I'm wondering how I can justify (i.e where they come from and how they might have been used) the 1st person singular and plural pronouns having suppleted forms (different root) in the accusative and genitive cases, such that:
1st Singular :
*ǧī́ > žaẏ
*ǧī́-ib > šad-ib (vs žay-ib)
*ǧī́-ak > šad-ik (vs žay-ak)

At least in the case of pronouns, I honestly don't think you need to justify it at all. Well, okay, maybe a little, since it's a derived language, but pronouns have suppletive forms in Proto-Indo-European, for example, and no-one's quite sure where they come from, and then that sort of suppletion got added to in languages like Albanian and Armenian. But yeah, you're starting out with a regular form and working from there.

The pronouns could have been replaced in the accusative and the genitive with nouns, possibly as a sort of politeness thing, or possibly an animacy thing. Like, the original pronouns are retained in the nominative almost as a sort of emphatic, "it is definitely me who's doing this thing" or "we are the main focus of this phrase". Where the first person pronouns would otherwise appear in the accusative, the speaker might want to de-emphasise their role "you are the one doing this thing to humble little me", so they might be replaced by a root simply meaning "servant" or "lesser", or something like that. Going down that route, it might then be conceivably possible that speakers of this language might use the passive voice when referring to themselves when talking to superiors, but the active voice when talking to inferiors (the rest of the pronouns don't need to change).

The genitive could follow a similar route, depending on exactly what the nature of the "possession" is. Like, if a man is "my king" then you might say "the king of the servant". So you might start out with two levels of possession, one where the speaker is superior to the thing "possessed" and one where they are inferior. Eventually that system collapses and all you're left with it the "inferior" one.

You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

I like that. And then there is the construct state, which is made through using a disfix. One language family will not have it and that is the one that diverged from Old Proto-Takshian while the ones that diverged from New Proto-Takshian develop it and these are also the languages that develop the suppleted genitive and accusative forms.

It turns out the Silvish numbers sí [ˈsi] "six" and sé [ˈse] "seven" are pronounced the same in a very specific circumstance. Before a word with an initial nasal, they both end up pronounced [sɛ̃]. This ambiguity is more than a little onerous. (Is that 6 million or 7 million euros?) Does anyone know of other natlangs/conlangs with sometimes-homophonous numbers and how those languages deal with them?

I knew Brazilian Portuguese exchanged some number for phone numbers so I looked it up and found this on Wikipedia:

Similarly, três "three" becomes [tɾejs], making it rhyme with seis "six" [sejs]; that may explain the common Brazilian replacement of seis with meia ("half", as in "half a dozen") when phone numbers are spelled out.

Googled a bit and then found this:

The number six can also be said meia, abbreviation of uma meia dúzia (or half a dozen), especially on the phone to differentiate between seis (six) and sete (seven).

Can it get any closer than a language in the same family having (kind of) the same problem with the same two numbers?

I knew Brazilian Portuguese exchanged some number for phone numbers so I looked it up and found this on Wikipedia:

Similarly, três "three" becomes [tɾejs], making it rhyme with seis "six" [sejs]; that may explain the common Brazilian replacement of seis with meia ("half", as in "half a dozen") when phone numbers are spelled out.

Googled a bit and then found this:

The number six can also be said meia, abbreviation of uma meia dúzia (or half a dozen), especially on the phone to differentiate between seis (six) and sete (seven).

Can it get any closer than a language in the same family having (kind of) the same problem with the same two numbers?

I daresay not. That's really neat and definite food for thought. The exact same thing probably wouldn't work in Silvish, since I don't want to be confusing "six million" for "half a million", but now I have a place to start.

It turns out the Silvish numbers sí [ˈsi] "six" and sé [ˈse] "seven" are pronounced the same in a very specific circumstance. Before a word with an initial nasal, they both end up pronounced [sɛ̃]. This ambiguity is more than a little onerous. (Is that 6 million or 7 million euros?) Does anyone know of other natlangs/conlangs with sometimes-homophonous numbers and how those languages deal with them?

An idea: Both of these numerals had not just one but two consonants after the stressed syllable in Latin, so I could easily imagine that your usual allophony rule for word-final vowels before a nasal-initial word in the same phrase would be blocked in this situation, probably keeping the vowels distinct. If you don't like to decree that offhand, you could also check what your sound changes would give if you treat {number + noun_with_initial_nasal} as a single word.

It turns out the Silvish numbers sí [ˈsi] "six" and sé [ˈse] "seven" are pronounced the same in a very specific circumstance. Before a word with an initial nasal, they both end up pronounced [sɛ̃]. This ambiguity is more than a little onerous. (Is that 6 million or 7 million euros?) Does anyone know of other natlangs/conlangs with sometimes-homophonous numbers and how those languages deal with them?

An idea: Both of these numerals had not just one but two consonants after the stressed syllable in Latin, so I could easily imagine that your usual allophony rule for word-final vowels before a nasal-initial word in the same phrase would be blocked in this situation, probably keeping the vowels distinct. If you don't like to decree that offhand, you could also check what your sound changes would give if you treat {number + noun_with_initial_nasal} as a single word.

Alternatively, French irregularly revived final -t in the word sept "seven" after it was dropped, probably for reasons of clarity like this.

Eresse anga paris cur neduc, a san teonga.The only thing more dangerous than doubt is certainty.

I'm working on a language with a lot of assimilation occuring between morpheme boundaries so that the language doesn't have consonant clusters although every basic morpheme has the structure C-V-C. For plosives the combination of P+h leads to lenition. Nasals and r become voiceless.
ph th kh bh dh gh→ ɸ θ x β ð ɣ
mh nh rh → m̥ n̥ r̥

Now what could I do with sh zh? I haven't found a single entry in index diachronica for it...
Is sh zh → ʃ ʒ plausible?